OPERATION OF PASSENGER-TRANSPORT SERVICES BY THE S.T.C. AND OTHER PASSENGER-TRANSPORT COMPANIES UNDER DIFFERENT ORDINANCES

4.01 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to my question tabled in this House this morning and the reply given by the Minister. From what I find on the question of the operation of public passenger-transport service, there are two kinds of law - one for the S.T.C. and one for the Chinese bus companies.

Prior to April 1956, the law where it controls the public passenger transport service was divided into two parts, as I have just mentioned. The Singapore Traction Ordinance, which controls buses operated by the Singapore Traction Company; and another one, which is section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance at that time and the Hackney Carriage by-laws made after this section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance, controls the Chinese bus companies.

After April 1956, the Government thought it best that there should be a licensing authority and it introduced a new law, which is called the Omnibus Licensing Authority Ordinance, to control the Chinese bus companies. Under this legislation, three members were appointed to this authority. One is the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works, who was made Chairman of the authority. Another one was the Chairman of the Rural Board, and the third member was the then President of the City Council.

Unfortunately, with the new City Council that has come into being, neither the Mayor nor the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council could sit on this authority, because at the time when this authority was introduced it was made clear that only members of the civil service could sit as members of this authority. The Mayor, who is an elected representative, cannot sit on this authority. So is the case with the Chief Administrative Officer who happens to be an employee of the City Council. So after 1957 or 1958 this authority has only two members - one, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works, and the other, the Chairman of the Rural Board.

Sir, when this authority was introduced, I was told that it was at the initiative of the then Minister for Communications and Works. It was he who had bright ideas of alleged corruption in the City Council and that it would be better to set up a new authority to control the public passenger-transport service, because he felt that even if more members sit on the Board it would not serve any purpose. It was subject to corruption. That was his way of thinking. I cannot understand how he could make it this way. When there are six, seven or eight persons to decide an issue - and it is so difficult to canvass or bribe all of them to come to a definite conclusion - there are allegations of corruption! Now, today with only two members sitting on that authority, there is no corruption at all. I am not suggesting that the members of this authority are corrupted. But I am trying to point out to the then Minister for Communications and Works, who sits right behind me, that his way of thinking about corruption is entirely from the practical side of it.

With the introduction of this new licensing authority, the Singapore Traction Company comes under the old law of the Singapore Traction Ordinance, and these Chinese bus companies come under this new Ordinance which also includes the Municipal Hackney Carriage By-Laws. Under these two laws, I find there is a lot of disparity in treatment. I will now come to the different types of disparities. The first is the monopoly given to the S.T.C. The S.T.C. is given a monopoly under a sort of charter and this charter was extended by the City Council for another seven years, because in 1956 the City Council was not able to buy up the S.T.C.

The monopoly gives them special rights to run a certain number of routes, they are covered in the Singapore Traction Ordinance, Section 3 of the Ordinance gives the different routes that the S.T.C. were allowed to operate:

Telok Blangah Road, Keppel Road, Anson Road, Telok Ayer Street, Cecil Street, Collyer Quay, Fullerton Road, Anderson Bridge and High Street, Hill Street, River Valley Road, Tank Road, Tanjong Pagar Road, South Bridge Road, North Bridge Road, Jalan Sultan, Victoria Street, Kallang Road and Geylang Road (Part), Geylang Road (Part), Bras Basah Road, Prinsep Road, Selegie Road, Serangoon Road, Upper Serangoon Road, Lavender Street, McKenzie Road.

And list "b" which was included later:

Upper Serangoon Road, Geylang Road, Victoria Street, Hill Street, New Bridge Road, Bukit Timah Road, Rochore Canal Road, Rochore Road.

This is the monopoly that has been given to the S.T.C. It is more or less a statutory right that the omnibuses or the buses operated by the S.T.C. should run according to these routes. If they want to apply for new routes, apart from what is in the Ordinance, they will have to apply to the proper authorities. The proper authority are the City Council where it is within the City radius, and the Rural Board where it is outside the City limits it should now be the District Councils.

This means that they are only confined to the Ordinance. They are allowed to operate only within the routes I have mentioned. And if they are to apply for any route outside that limit, they will have to submit plans to the proper authorities, showing the way how they are going to run it and the reasons why they are going to run it. I will read the interpretation of the word "Authority":

'the expression "the Authority" means, in the case of that portion of the Island of Singapore situated within City limits, the City Council and, in the case of any other part of the said Island, the District Council;'

This part of the law which I have found recently is not in the least respected by this authority, because, as I have mentioned, this authority has only two members sitting on it. You can now find S.T.C. buses penetrating into every other street not listed in the law. Applications are made and if the authority thinks fit to give it to the S.T.C., it just says "Yes" and it goes ahead without reference to the City Council. Why are the applications not referred to the City Council or to the District Council?

I quote a case where representations were made to me by the Queenstown Community Centre and the Redhill Community Centre. There are many thousands of residents in these two localities - Alexandra, Queenstown and Redhill kampongs. They come down to Tanjong Pagar or to town either for work or any kind of business. There is no direct service at all from Queenstown or Redhill to Tanjong Pagar, which means that all the residents within these two areas will have to take two or three different buses by different routes to come down to Tanjong Pagar.

Apart from this, Sir, there are many school children who attend the Fairfield Girls' School, which is near Cantonment Road. These school children, aged seven, eight or nine, will also have to travel two or three different routes to get to their school.

Application for a bus service was made to the City Council about two years ago. At that time the Licensing Authority had not taken over, and the City Council took all the trouble and spent money to widen Cantonment Road, so that it could take the heavy load of these omnibuses. Cantonment Road is now widened and it can take omnibuses. But when that application was referred to the Licensing Authority after it has taken over, it was turned down. I do not know why should it be turned down. If that application had been approved, it would not have caused so much trouble to the bus company that is running that route. It would only necessitate a very slight deviation of the existing route of the bus company that is operating in that area. Why then, Sir, should the residents of Queenstown and Redhill suffer because this Licensing Authority did not look into their plight?

On the other hand, Sir, as I have said, the authority has allowed the S.T.C. buses to penetrate into the Chinese bus companies' areas. Why should there be disparity and discrimination, Sir? I think it is either due to the ignorance or inefficiency of the members of that authority who do not look at things in the right way. If the members of that authority claim that they are neither ignorant nor inefficient, then I say it is discrimination of treatment. Because it so happens that the S.T.C. is not an Asian company. It is more or less run and managed by the Whites or the Europeans. That is the reason why.

The then Minister at that time was a nominated Minister. He was not aware of the trouble, because he did not stand for election. He does not know what the people want, and he does not know the troubles of the people. The members of that authority also do not know. May I say that the then Minister was a white man and, as a white man, certainly I think he was in his mind pro-white. The Singapore Traction Company is more or less controlled by Europeans and he should be a little bit pro-white. I wonder whether the Minister himself has given a direction to this authority that whenever they decide on these applications for bus routes, they should be pro-white. Because, as far as I understand, Sir, section 4 of the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance does give powers to the Minister to issue a directive to the authority.

Section 4, reads:

"The Minister may from time to time give to the Authority such general directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance as he may think fit and the Authority shall comply with all such directions."

Sir, it is my assumption - the Member for Tanjong Pagar always assumes things - that the then Minister, who was a white man, would have given directions to this authority that it should be given to a white company and not to any of these Asian companies. If that is the directive, Sir, it is now high time that the new Minister, who is an elected Minister and not a nominated Minister - he is also an Asian - changed that directive.

Now, coming to the licence and licence fees, this is where the disparity comes in. The S.T.C. do not pay any licence fee at all to operate bus routes. It was given free of charge to them. You have your buses, you run on the routes that have been given to you. The Chinese bus companies will have to pay $10 every six months for a bus route licence, irrespective of the number of buses that operate on that route.

Coming to the licence fee of the vehicle itself. The S.T.C. enjoy the privilege of paying a sort of royalty to the City Council and the Rural Board - 5 per cent of its gross takings, plus two cents for every car-mile run whilst carrying passengers -which means that they only pay 5 per cent of the gro ss profits plus two cents for every car-mile run. This means that an S.T.C. vehicle which is stationed on the S.T.C. premises, does not pay at all. Only when it runs and carries passengers does it pay two cents for every car-mile run.

What do the Chinese bus companies pay? First, as a seating fee of $5 per passenger per month. This means that it depends upon the size of the vehicle, and for every passenger the Chinese bus company must pay $5.

Second, we have a horsepower tax that we normally pay. We have our vehicles on the roads and the Chinese bus companies must pay the same tax as we pay. This is what is imposed on the Chinese bus companies. Third, Sir, there is the hackney-carriage fee of $30 for every six months. Now, the Chinese bus companies have to pay $10 for the use of a route every six months. On top of that $10, they have to pay a hackney-carriage fee of $30 every six months. Just compare the difference in treatment and the fees paid!

Coming to the question of fares, Sir. The S.T.C. are allowed to charge a minimum of ten cents for the first mile and five cents for every subsequent mile. But can the Chinese bus companies start with a minimum fare of ten cents for the first mile? No. I am not trying to suggest that the Chinese bus companies should raise their fares to ten cents for the first mile, because it will make things difficult for the travelling public who will have to pay more for their fares. I am suggesting that the S.T.C. should reduce the fare to five cents for the first mile to bring it in line with the Chinese bus companies. The travelling public would benefit by this. Most people who travel in public transport do not travel long distances as car owners do. It is only on these short distances that the companies make a bigger margin of profit. No wonder the S.T.C. make a lot of money every year!

Coming back to accidents and mechanical defects in buses. Sir, if a bus belonging to a Chinese company is involved in an accident or if it has mechanical defects, it has to be brought to the Registrar of Vehicles immediately for a mechanical inspection. Only after the mechanical inspection and after all the defects are attended to can that bus go back on the road. But the S.T.C. under its charter or under the Ordinance, enjoy a privilege. They have their own Registrar of Vehicles to inspect their vehicles. If an S.T.C. bus is involved in an accident or there are mechanical defects in a vehicle, the S.T.C. repairs it in its own shed. I am even prepared to overlook this, but why should it not be sent to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection after it has been repaired? There are qualified inspectors who can check the vehicle instead of their saying, "All right, you have already repaired your vehicle. You can put it back on the road." The Chinese bus companies must send their vehicles to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection, and if there are any defects, they are sent to the workshops for repairs. After that they are sent back again to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection and if they are certified fit for road service, then only can they go on the road. But in the case of the S.T.C. buses, who is there to check whether they have been repaired or not? The S.T.C. can say, "We have repaired this vehicle after the accident." There is no inspector to certify whether that is the case. Their own people pass judgment on their own vehicles. There are many, many more points of disparity, but it may take me too long to describe them. I have already spoken for about 18 minutes and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply if he wants to.

Sir, I would like the new elected and Asian Minister - I congratulate him on being an elected Minister and I am much obliged to him for the reply he gave me this morning - to consider my suggestion: one, to put the S.T.C. on the same footing as the Chinese bus companies, or, alternatively, to bring the Chinese bus companies in line with the S.T.C.; and two, to review any directives that may have been issued by the former Minister for Communications and Works to the Licensing Authority consisting of only two men who are supposed to be incorruptible. There should be a Committee consisting of about six men. If there have been such directives issued, they should be withdrawn and new directives issued.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do not propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, to attempt to deal with the lengthy and extremely inaccurate remarks of the Member for Queenstown. Anybody who wishes to inform himself on transport matters should get a copy of the Hawkins' Commission Report in which he will find the situation properly laid out. Anybody who is misguided enough to accept the guidance of the Member for Queenstown in this matter will certainly find himself in error.

Now, there are two points on which I would like to speak. The first is what appears to be a suggestion by the Member for Queenstown that foreign investors should be deprived of the protection of the law. His own Party newspaper has been quoted in the daily Press - I have not seen the paper myself - as threatening that if his Party does not get elected, there will be a strike of capital to be organised so as to strangle Singapore. Yet he himself is proposing in this proposed treatment of the Singapore Traction Company precisely the sort of anti-foreign investment line which would be the worst possible thing for Singapore. He is proposing apparently to deprive them unilaterally of the benefits of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. I have seldom heard a more irresponsible speech and I hope that it will be officially denied by the Government Front Bench that there is any reason at all to support that. If he is suggesting that foreign investors should be deprived of the protection of the law, I hope that will be made quite clear by the Front Bench, that there is no question of that at all. If it cannot be made quite clear, it is a matter where I shall personally feel bound even to sever my long connection with this side of the House and move across to the other side of the House - if I thought that this Government is going to adopt the line of frightening away reasonable and responsible overseas investors in the hope of getting votes for the elections.

Another point on which I would like very briefly to deal with is the allegation or insinuation by the hon. Member that I am a white man and therefore I have given pro-white directives to the officers in my Ministry and to the Members of the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority. I think the time has come when we should stop talking about the colour of people's skins and talk of people according to their citizenship, whether they are Singapore citizens or not. I am a Singapore citizen. I have a home in Singapore. I married a Singapore woman. My child goes to a Singapore school and I hope to live and die a citizen of Singapore. I have the most sad and pained feelings in my heart when again an hon. Member of this Assembly can raise - for what reason I can hardly guess, nor would you allow me to guess, Mr Speaker - a racial and a communal issue on a matter which is purely concerned with the profits of Chinese bus companies. He referred to the rumour, I believe, that there was corruption in dealings with bus company matters when they were handled by the City Council. Matters of corruption are very hard to prove indeed, but those who have made any examination of the facts, either of the furniture in people's houses or of the new cars that appeared in front of people's houses when there was a new route approved, or of the presence of other goods, have also studied the irrationality and the folly of the City Council.

Mr Lee Choon Eng rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Yes, Sir. The Member is making accusations, Sir. Can the Member name the City Councillors who had new cars when a bus route was approved?

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. Mr Thomas.

Mr Francis Thomas: Sir, the irrationality and folly of some of the licensing decisions made in the City Council in those days imposed on Singapore a completely irrational and unserviceable transport system.

Those are the two points which I thought were unfortunate in the hon. Member's speech. We do not need in Singapore today to try to create more fears and hatred between the citizens of this city. We need to bring people together, not to try to separate them on grounds of culture or colour or language or religion, and anybody who takes any other line is performing a great disservice to this country. We also need to preserve the most friendly relations we can with overseas territories, particularly with those who have invested or who may invest in the development of Singapore, and any suggestion that foreign investors are going to be deprived of the protection of the law is a most mischievous and irresponsible suggestion.

4.25 p.m.

Mr Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very unfortunate indeed that various allegations and many things which have no bearing on the subject should have been discussed.

First of all, may I dissociate myself from the remarks of the Member for Queenstown when he said that my predecessor had judged all issues of licensing on the basis of colour. Having had the privilege of looking into the whole aspect of the traffic problem and the enormous amount of work which my predecessor had to go through, I am convinced beyond all doubt that there had been no bias in the discharge of his duties.

The Member for Queenstown is not in full possession of the facts regarding the membership of the Omnibus Licensing Authority. I heard him say that there are only two members on the Board, namely, the Permanent Secretary to my Ministry and the Chairman of the Rural Board. I must inform him, Sir, that the Board consists of three members: the Registrar of Vehicles who is the Secretary of the Board, my Permanent Secretary, and the Chairman of the Rural Board.

Sir, I can show that many of the points he raised were baseless. I do not think I have enough time now at my disposal to do so; but may I just inform this House that there are two important documents in regard to the passenger transport service which have been in the hands of hon. Members for a long time? The first one is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System which was accepted by the Government as a clear, comprehensive and authoritative analysis of the grounds for concern of the state of industry in Singapore. The other document is Cmd. Paper No. 48 of 1956. Both these two documents give full details of the complications of our transport system and the Government policy regarding it.

Sir, I said this morning that the Government has fully realised and has come to the conclusion that there cannot be proper co-ordination of the service in the public interest and that the traffic needs of the area as a whole cannot be met unless all operators are subject to the same licensing system and rules. The activities with regard to unifying the transport system in Singapore have been undertaken by my predecessor, but they were negatived by difficulties. We have felt, Sir, that the only step which is of paramount importance to the achievement of a unified bus transport system is the purchase of the Singapore Traction Company and, as my predecessor has stated in the Assembly, the stumbling-block to this has been the lack of finance. I must say here and now, Sir, that if we have the money, the problem can be ironed out fairly quickly. The other difficulty which faced the Ministry was the question of the Chinese bus owners not being able to agree among themselves on the amalgamation of all Chinese bus companies, which we thought was the first step to the unification of the bus service.

Sir, I have not been able to make the whole thing clear as there are so many other points which could further clarify the whole matter. I do not think I have any more time left, but I would just like to point out one more point and that is the allegation against the Licensing Authority. From my own experience, Sir-

Mr Speaker: Order. We have reached the time of termination of the sitting. Of course, the Minister may take advantage of the opportunity tomorrow to make a Ministerial statement.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued until the time appointed for the termination of a sitting, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half past Four o'clock p.m.